Pages

Sunday, 15 December 2013

J. D. Salinger& Jane Austen; or I now see Jane Austen with different eyes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Salinger#Writing_in_the_1950s_and_move_to_CornishJ. D.
Salinger: "A
writer, when he's asked to discuss his craft, ought to get up and call out in a
loud voice just the names of the writers he loves. I love Kafka, Flaubert,
Tolstoy, Chekhov, Dostoevsky, Proust, O'Casey, Rilke, Lorca, Keats, Rimbaud,
Burns, E. Brontë, Jane Austen, Henry James, Blake, Coleridge. I won't name any
living writers. I don't think it's right."I
noticed it a while ago, but long before this I had read most of his books and
at the time didn't pay much attention to the mention of Jane Austen in
"Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut". Only today was I reminded of it: "Oh,
God! I don't know. He told me he loved Jane Austen. He told me her books meant
a great deal to him. That's exactly what he said. I found out after we were
married that he hadn't even read one of her books."That
is, my memory stored this part: "He told me he loved [some writer]. He
told me her books meant a great deal to him. That's exactly what he said. I
found out after we were married that he hadn't even read one of her
books." That how it was. Which is why now I am amazed to realise that the
name that totally disappeared from my memory was Jane Austen. (Eloise's
words echo these lines in "Sense and sensibility" about Marianne and
Willoughby: "Encouraged by this to a further examination of his opinions,
she proceeded to question him on the subject of books; her favourite authors
were brought forward and dwelt upon with so rapturous a delight, that any young
man of five-and-twenty must have been insensible indeed, not to become an
immediate convert to the excellence of such works, however disregarded before.
Their taste was strikingly alike. The same books, the same passages were
idolized by each -- or, if any difference appeared, any objection arose, it
lasted no longer than till the force of her arguments and the brightness of her
eyes could be displayed. He acquiesced in all her decisions, caught all her
enthusiasm, and long before his visit concluded, they conversed with the
familiarity of a long-established acquaintance.") The
connection and influence are discussed here:http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.no/2010/06/jd-salinger-and-jane-austen.htmlhttp://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.no/2013/07/jd-salinger-jane-austen-revisited.htmlAs it
turns out, in "Hapworth 16, 1924", which I haven't read, Salinger
lets Seymour Glass say:"Jane
Austen, in entirety or in any shape or form, discounting 'Pride and Prejudice,'
which is already in possession. I will not disturb this incomparable girl’s
genius with dubious remarks; I have already hurt Miss Overman’s feelings
inexcusably by refusing to discuss this girl, but I lack even the slight
decency to regret it very much. Quite in a pinch, I would be willing to meet
somebody at Rosings, but I cannot enter into a discussion of a womanly genius
this humorous, magnificent, and personal to me; I have made some feeble, human
attempts, but nothing at all meritorious."

________________________________________________

As
Arnie Perlstein of "Sharp elves society" has pointed out, both J. D.
Salinger and Jane Austen share an acute eye for and an intense dislike of
phonies (also shared by F. Scott Fitzgerald, another favourite writer of
Salinger): Mr Spencer, Stradlater, Ackley, the crying mother at the cinema, the
roommate with cheap suitcases... in "The catcher in the rye", Muriel
Glass and her mother in "A perfect day for bananafish"; John and
Fanny Dashwood, John Willoughby, Lucy Steele, Lady Middleton... in "Sense
and sensibility", Philip and Augusta Elton in "Emma", Mrs
Norris, Maria and July Bertram, Henry and Mary Crawford... in "Mansfield
park". That's
not the only thing they have in common, however.The
clearest influence of Jane Austen on Salinger is the depiction of characters
through the use of dialogue, by creating a different voice for each character,
especially in Salinger's short fiction (though his ear for dialogue can also be
said to be inherited from Fitzgerald and Hemingway). Vladimir Nabokov, Franz
Kafka, William Faulkner, Virginia Woolf, Gustave Flaubert... are, in contrast,
not particularly fond of this technique. And though these 2 writers sound
cynical and sometimes seem not to like people very much, they both have humour,
mostly in "The catcher in the rye" for Salinger and in everything by
Jane Austen, who always makes fun of something, laughs at something.

________________________________________________

Anyone who
knows me must find it shocking and incomprehensible that 4 months after
declaring it would be fine if the whole world adored Jane Austen and I was the
only one who abhorred her, now I'm seeing her in an entirely
different light.I acknowledge that before touching her works I had certain prejudices that
recently have been proven to be wrong. For example, like V. S. Naipaul I
thought she was sentimental, romantic, naively hopeful and unrealistic. That's
terribly wrong. I don't think her books really have a light-hearted tone
either. Apparently popularity has done her reputation more harm than
good. Now, reading "Mansfield park", I sometimes find Jane Austen unbearably tedious but sometimes particularly
enjoyable, sharp and thought-provoking; in a way conservative, unimaginative, indifferent to the outside world
and too content in her little world, boring one to death with the tendency to confine
herself in her comfort zone but on the other hand admirably proud, independent, daring and courageous in her insistence on realism, disdain for the genres and
methods and devices of her predecessors and contemporaries, determination to go her
own way in a patriarchal society with no regard for male authors' grander topics, and the way she pokes fun at everything and everybody- the sentimental novel, the gothic novel, and
"such novelistic clichés as love at first sight, the primacy of passion
over all other emotions and/or duties, the chivalric exploits of the hero, the
vulnerable sensitivity of the heroine, the lovers' proclaimed indifference to
financial considerations, and the cruel crudity of parents". (It should be
noted too that Jane Austen never bothered to conceal her gender, albeit hiding
her name, she published as "a lady"). From about chapter 14 (I'm currently in the middle of chapter 17), "Mansfield park" is astonishingly well-written. Astonishing, because it becomes much better. The greatness is, most of the time, in the tiny details, some gestures, a few words, very subtle. Jane Austen's characters are not unique like those created by Emily Bronte, Dostoyevsky..., what makes them valuable and memorable is that they're like ordinary people- I can see myself in them or recognise in them somebody I know. Her world is a little, limited one and standing alone each of her characters, especially the supporting ones, may be quite flat now and then, but put them together one sees all humanity. That's the appeal of Jane Austen. That's the reason 200 years later she's still widely read and studied and discussed- society has changed, customs and traditions have changed, but human faults are still there, from prejudice, self-delusion,
inquisitiveness, garrulousness, flattery, self-importance, insincerity, impulsiveness, vanity,
officiousness, egotism, vulgarity, insipidity, pretentiousness... to hypocrisy, deceit,
disloyalty, mercenariness, self-indulgence, stinginess... Her characters embody these
faults, as she makes fun of people and herself and critiques social hypocrisy, without becoming caricatures like Dickens's.Her limitations, mentioned on my blog 4 months ago, I still see clearly. I can never call her the best writer of all time. But her strengths and values, as it turns out, are much more than just a pretty writing style, the well-constructed sentences and that gentle laugh behind the lines. Will discuss more later.

Note

I today am not accountable for every single post on this blog. Besides all the posts written and published in anger or excitement, it has happened quite often that I discussed a topic and supported a view only to change my mind a few weeks or months (or years) later, especially in literature (view on Jane Austen, Nabokov, The French Lieutenant's Woman, etc). Therefore, people coming across this blog should be reminded that the opinions I held at some point in my life are not necessarily my opinions now. Thank you.